About your second question - what would be the point? The first time they landed, Americans needed to show that they were more advanced then the Soviets, especially after the Sputnik and Gagarin. After that, there really wasn't anything that a man could do on the moon that a robot couldn't do better, and it would also cost less to get a robot there, and you didn't have to worry about a robots life so much.

Yes they did. ALL evidence points to that fact. Thousands upon thousands of people contributed to the science behind it, the finance behind it, and the organisation behind it. It happened.

It hasn't been done again because there's nothing else to discover...we know everything there is to know about the moon. A useful mission then, but we've come a long way now. Especially in this financial time, how can an administration justify the enormous costs to go to the moon, just for the sake of it?

Honestly! Where do all these crazy conspiracy nuts come from? And why do they flock to atheist sites?! OF COURSE we landed a man on the moon!! I think this argument has been responded to so many times that this falls into one of those categories of "pointless arguements that won't convince the conspiracy believers no matter what!" So I'm not going to answer this argument. Look it up! *Headdesk!*

I'm really amused how cuckoo some people can get from a simple question. I haven't actually got the chance to say anything about this, and they already seem to want to slap me or bang my head against some desk. :)

Some people seem to forget that this site is based on refuting crazy ideas, and that without those ideas this site wouldn't even exist, and, most important, that without talking about even the craziest ideas, those ideas will never go away. I'm really disappointed that some of you make such a big deal out of this, when I simply wanted a few opinions, opinions from people who I am beginning to trust that they know what they're talking about, and that are more experienced in some domains.

If my question is so stupid, then this site would have to be even stupider, after all, most of us are certain there is no god, but we keep talking about it. Geez...

I want to thank those that, even if they think this is a stupid topic or question, have either decided to give a decent answer or to not give one at all. To the rest, shame on you.

Your point is well taken. This site exists for the refutation of crazy ideas, and without talking about them we are left with little to discuss. I hope you didn't mind my slightly flippant remarks on this thread. I felt I was following the spirit of your intent.

I am a little surprised by folks' strident defense of the moon landing as there has never been a serious question of its reality. But really, can you blame people? Reason itself is under pretty serious attack these days! :)

Some people seem to forget that this site is based on refuting crazy ideas, and that without those ideas this site wouldn't even exist, and, most important, that without talking about even the craziest ideas, those ideas will never go away. I'm really disappointed that some of you make such a big deal out of this, when I simply wanted a few opinions, opinions from people who I am beginning to trust that they know what they're talking about, and that are more experienced in some domains.

I understand that some of the responses may seem antagonistic. But some people may have read the question as directly promoting a lunar hoax conspiracy. I don't think that you intended to give that impression, but I can see how some may have interpreted it as such. Therefore, some people may have responded defensively to what they perceived as promotion of an old conspiracy theory. Yet another instance highlighting the wondrous ambiguity of internet communication. :)

But I also do think that there is a fundamental difference between questioning religious assertions and questioning scientific assertions. The former are based entirely upon metaphysical claims, while the latter are firmly rooted in empirical evidence. NASA's claim of having visited the moon is supported by a wealth of evidence, while religious claims for the existence of God are precariously spun upon slippery philosophical conundrums.

In short, the lunar landing is supported by material evidence while the existence of God is supported by immaterial arguments. Questioning the lunar landing is done by examining the evidence that supports the claim. Questioning the existence of God is done by examining the arguments that support the claim. To date, no serious flaws have been found with the evidence supporting the lunar landing while innumerable flaws have been found with the arguments supporting the existence of God.

Nonetheless, it is an interesting topic. I mean, I wouldn't have sat through the entire hour that Mythbusters spent debunking it if it were boring. But I have always had a soft spot for conspiracy theories. Next to apocalyptic scenarios, I think that they reveal fascinating tendencies of the human psyche.